Thursday, January 13, 2005

Don Brash tsunami

Soon after the Boxing Day tsunami struck, the Ayn Rand Institute issued an uncharitable op-ed saying that the United States government should not give any money to help the tsunami victims, because the money is not the government's to give. This is like claiming that because there's nothing wrong with eating meat, it's OK to slaughter and dine upon the family pet. Whatever the merits of that argument, it's not going to win over any vegetarians.

One of the most annoying things about Ayn Rand's disciples is their Rand-speak. They say, "The American public's predictably generous response to assist these efforts is motivated by goodwill toward their fellow man... This benevolence, which we share, is not the same thing as altruism." Sorry, Randoids, but benevolence and altruism are pretty much the same thing. They then go on to define altruism as "the moral view that need entitles a person to the values of others, whose corresponding duty is to sacrifice their values for that person's sake." Wrong again. That's socialism, not altruism.

The thing is, their view, that the money the government gives in aid is not theirs to give, is essentially correct. Would that they could do a better sales job. What the ARI needs is Don Brash!

Don Brash was dubbed "Hurricane Brash" in the wake of his Orewa speech last year. Political columnist Colin James referred to the Don Brash phenomenon as the "Don Brash tsunami" - unfortunately, just 6 days before Boxing Day. Well, Brash has issued a press release critical of the government's response to the disaster. "I would be the last person to argue for frivolous Government spending but this is one of those cases where the Government response has been inadequate. New Zealanders are a generous people and would expect their Government to be more forthcoming."

Recognise this as essentially the same claim as the ARI's? No? That's how good a salesman Don Brash is! Let me explain.

40% of New Zealand's GDP is government spending. The money the government spends is money stolen in a multitude of ways from tax-payers - ordinary, working New Zealanders. Once that money is out of our wallets and in the hands of the government, we no longer have any real say over how it gets spent. The government decides, not us. So, if we want to give less money to charity, we can't. More importantly, if we want to give more to charity, we can't - not, at least, from the 40% of our money the government has appropriated.

If it's true that the government should not give money to help the tsunami victims, because the money is not the government's to give, then neither should the government withhold money which could go to help tsunami victims, because it is not the government's to withhold.

The ARI's clarification was not embarrassing. It was unfortunate that they wrote the first op-ed with those who had taken the philosophy on board in mind already. Clark is donating because she wants Annan's job - everyone knows that. Meanwhile people die on hospital waiting lists. As I have said on my blog, I have no objection to disaster relief. However, there is already talk that the generous aid from the USA will be seen as an attempt to mollify the international community for not getting approval to invade Iraq. Ole Satan is ok when he is flying in in his godless helicopters.